Recommended Posts

I was not going to start my own thread on this since there was one posted in Luthier Exchange. Someone posted there inDecember 2012 with no replies. So I'm just checking here if anyone has the Davidov Poster and would be willing to make a copy.

I just ordered the "Seveuse" poster from The Strad Library, and found a thread where it seems to NOT be the B form...

I made a scan of the B&W dimension side of my Vuillaume cello posted and FedEx Office (formerly Kinkos) for like $7... That and shipping and your trouble I'd be willing too negotiate a fair price.

Heck, I'd be grateful if someone could just post some of the more critical dimensions off their poster...

Body Length =

Upper Bout =

C Bout =

Lower Bout =

Purfling distance to edge =

Edge Overhang =

Top Plate thickness at edge =

Back Plate Thickness at edge =

Rib height at Neck =

Rib Height at C-Bout =

Rib Height at Bottom Block =

etc ... and anything else you care to share!

I'm working on a tracing off the photo from Roger Hargrave's article from the 2001 Strad, but blown up, its a little sketchy.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

I was not going to start my own thread on this since there was one posted in Luthier Exchange. Someone posted there inDecember 2012 with no replies. So I'm just checking here if anyone has the Davidov Poster and would be will to make a copy.

I just ordered the "Seveuse" and found a thread where it seems to NOT be the B form...

I made a scan of the B&W dimension side of my Vuillaume cello posted and FedEx Office (formerly Kinkos) for like $7... That and shipping and your trouble I'd be willing too negotiate a fair price.

Heck, I'd be grateful if someone could just post some of the more critical dimensions off their poster...

Body Length =

Upper Bout =

C Bout =

Lower Bout =

Purfling distance to edge =

Edge Overhang =

Top Plate thickness at edge =

Back Plate Thickness at edge =

Rib height at Neck =

Rib Height at C-Bout =

Rib Height at Bottom Block =

etc ... and anything else you care to share!

I'm working on a tracing off the photo from Roger Hargrave's article from the 2001 Strad, but blown up, its a little sketchy.

It may not be necessary to limit yourself to one specific instrument when many of the forma B cellos have something to offer and in many ways are similar. Gore-Booth 1710, Duport 1711, Davidoff 1712, Bass of Spain 1713, Alexandre Batta 1714.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

It may not be necessary to limit yourself to one specific instrument when many of the forma B cellos have something to offer and in many ways are similar. Gore-Booth 1710, Duport 1711, Davidoff 1712, Bass of Spain 1713, Alexandre Batta 1714.

Bruce

Thanks Bruce!

Absolutely a fine approach. I like to mix and match and see what variations exist and then come up with my design. That's the way I drew up my 16 3/4" viola.. For which, except for the points, the tracing I used for the viola form when scaled proportionally overlays the Davidov Cello tracing very closely.

I'd be happy to get dimensions on any one of these instruments, if anyone cares to share them! Sounds like the B Form exists or else how could so many makers utilize it. Is it for sale somewhere? Sacconi was only kind enough to share Stradivari's two violin moulds.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Absolutely a fine approach. I like to mix and match and see what variations exist and then come up with my design. That's the way I drew up my 16 3/4" viola.. For which, except for the points, the tracing I used for the viola form when scaled proportionally overlays the Davidov Cello tracing very closely.

I'd be happy to get dimensions on any one of these instruments, if anyone cares to share them! Sounds like the B Form exists or else how could so many makers utilize it. Is it for sale somewhere? Sacconi was only kind enough to share Stradivari's two violin moulds.

Cheers,

Joe

Sacconi made a drawing from the Piatti of 1720 but I'll have to look for it.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

I do not know if there are any legal issues to share photos of the discontinued poster, even if mine is not in good condition (badly folded).

Anyway I share this low resolution photo but I do not know if it will be possible to understand something......

Davide

Much appreciated!

I have no problem with sharing something I paid for. When I initially went to Kinko's to inquire on copying the Vuillaume poster, then initially mentioned not being able to copy copyrighted material. But when I brought in the poster they had no problem. I don't see any statement on the poster or website about copyright.issues. If something is out of print and they aren't making more (so they won't be making any more money from it) what other choice is there?

Yeah, I can't quite get numbers off this. If you want to PM me or email the higher res picture that would be great.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

I have no problem with sharing something I paid for. When I initially went to Kinko's to inquire on copying the Vuillaume poster, then initially mentioned not being able to copy copyrighted material. But when I brought in the poster they had no problem. I don't see any statement on the poster or website about copyright.issues. If something is out of print and they aren't making more (so they won't be making any more money from it) what other choice is there?

Yeah, I can't quite get numbers off this. If you want to PM me or email the higher res picture that would be great.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

If the goal is to rejuvenate a poster with multiple and deep folds in it, getting the poster laminated with clear plastic on both sides might do the job. The folds won't disappear completely, but their presence will diminish. I've had laminated (at Staples) a number of Strad posters, including cello size ones. The posters were as they come with the magazine, folded. After lamination the folds are barely visible. Given that the poster, above, has more wear than a newly arrived, folded one, you might have a discussion with the employee doing the lamination to be sure they can do no harm with lamination. At the very least, the lamination stops further wear.

The lamination cost me, as I remember, anywhere from $2 when on sale to about $10, maybe less, when not.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

an architectural blueprinting shop can run a cello poster through their scanners

for a few bucks in color or black and white on glossy paper it you want.

It can also be resized, nothing wrong with copying them if you are using the copy's to build from.

I might have mentioned that I took my folded Vuillaume poster to Kinko's (FedEx Office) in November and for $7 they scanned the B&W dimension side in their large format scanner. Full sized 24" x 36" ... Running it through the scanner flattens out all the folds. It would cost a bit more to copy the color side. But the line drawings and dimensions are the most important part.

Might be worth doing that for some of these more important posters that are out of print.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Thanks all so much for all the help with the Davidov Cello design. You guys and Gals are ALL awesome!

I love my CorelDraw program. Its great for laying out darwings and templates. Here is Interesting comparison I was wondering if any one cared to comment on. I took my tracing of ther Davidov Cello I derived from Rager's 2001 Article (PDF) and overlaid my scan (above) of the Sacconi B Form mould.

There is very close good agreement in overall dimensions and shape except for the lower points which are 7.5 mm lower in the Davidov Cello than in the original Sacconi B form drawing. I assume Sacconi's drawing of the B Form is not off by that much.

What is the origin of this discrepancy? Does this represent a variations Stradivari made in the B form cello. And is this typical of the various cellos menitoned by Bruce above?

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Well I have extensive notes rubbings and measurements and about 60 photographs, (don't ask they are all slides), but no-where is there a stop length. I must have missed it, which is presumably why the Strad did not include it. I don't want to guess so maybe someone else has it. Sorry.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Well I have extensive notes rubbings and measurements and about 60 photographs, (don't ask they are all slides), but no-where is there a stop length. I must have missed it, which is presumably why the Strad did not include it. I don't want to guess so maybe someone else has it. Sorry.

Thanks anyway for seeking.

Deducting the stop lenght from the photo on the poster comes out about 410 mm, a bit longer for my taste.

Maybe this could explain the low position of the lower corners of the Davidov superimposed on the Sacconi's drawing.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Deducting the stop lenght from the photo on the poster comes out about 410 mm, a bit longer for my taste.

Maybe this could explain the low position of the lower corners of the Davidov superimposed on the Sacconi's drawing.

Davide

Yeah it's definitely long. I've been working off the poster trying to get a good tracing of the purfling this past week, and from this it looks like, if you scale the photo so the body length is 758 mm as specified, then stop length is about 709.3 mm...

At this scale length the lower bout and center bout agree with the printed specs on the poster for the Davidov Top measurements.

Top Plate: Poster Photo

-------------------------------------------------------

Body length 758 mm 758mm

Upper Bout 342 mm 348 mm

Center Bout 232 mm 232 mm

Lower bout 437.5 mm 438 mm

The upper bout seems to be off by about 6 mm from the photo. Maybe a type-o on the poster?

If I compare my tracing of the Davidov photo, with Strobel Cello pattern, it compares very favorably.

The points on the Strobel cello are a bit more pronounced. But the bout width/shapes and point positions agree very nicely with the Davidov cello tracing when you alternate aligning the upper bouts or lower bouts. The body length of the Strobel cello has been reduced by about 5 mm, presumably to correct the stop length, which is 400 mm in the Strobel pattern. You can see when shifting around the tracing on the Strobel pattern, that he took the length out of the C-bout for his pattern. Seems like a reasonable thing to do.

Does that mean Rostopovich, and Dupre, and Yo Yo Ma play(ed) the Davidov with the longer stop length?

The bridge and F-hole nicks line up perfectly with the line on the photo. So the bridge position is where Strad intended it - at least in the picture. It's interesting to me anyway...

As to whether to make a 400 mm stop length cello or the longer Davidov stop length. If I were a good cellist, I'd probably have a stronger opinion. However, I'm still leaning towards the Davidov dimensions.

Thanks Roger for the work on this poster! Only wish I could have purchased one instead of piggy backing of someone else's photo's of your work!

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Out of curiosity what can be said about the apparent difference in shape of the tracing from the Davidov photo and the Sacconi B form cello mould? It would seem the Davidov were made from a slightly different mould that the one Sacconi rendered in his manuscript. And if the B Form was so prevelant why are there so many variations in Stradivari cello dimensions?

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

I know this is an old thread but i was wondering if anyone has made a cello off of Sacconi's reconstruction of the cello b-form as posted above. Based on Joe's comments, it appears to differ slightly from Roger's Davidov drawing (lower part of the centre bouts are lower in the Davidov)